Read memory

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states it 'reads raw bytes', implying a non-mutating operation, but it does not disclose prerequisites like requiring an active session, potential side effects (e.g., whether it halts the target), or error conditions. The description offers minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action, which is insufficient given the lack of annotation support.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes an illustrative example. There is no verbose or redundant content; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool is relatively simple (3 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a clear overview but lacks details on return value format, error handling, or specific conditions of use. It does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., hex-encoded bytes), and it omits any mention of session requirements or limitations, making it only partially complete for a tool with no structured output information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is only 33%, with only the address parameter described in the schema. The description adds meaning for the address field by explaining it can be a symbol-address expression and providing an example, which is helpful. However, it does not add any additional meaning for the length or sessionId parameters, leaving them underspecified relative to the low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reads raw bytes from target memory, specifying both the resource (target memory) and the action (read). It also provides an example of the address expression format ('&my_global'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_write and evaluate_expression.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for reading memory contents, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions. The usage context is understandable from the purpose, but without explicit guidance or mention of when not to use it (e.g., for expression evaluation), it lacks clear when-to-use instructions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.